[brucethemoose2]

So, all it takes to consider a small community requested change in Chromium is a massive protest from thousands of users, small businesses, and Fortune 500 companies for almost a year...

Or maybe they are just trying to keep feature parity with Safari.

[jsnell]

Of course Apple adding support in Safari is far more important than Internet outrage!

At this point adding new {image, audio, video, compression} codecs to browsers is probably a net negative, unless there's a good chance they get deployed across the entire browser ecosystem. Safari is generally the browser that's most conservative about implementing anything new, so their support makes a huge difference in the viability of getting the format universally supported.

[brucethemoose2]

None of this stopped Google's push for WebP or AVIF.

[jsnell]

Right, WebP was almost certainly a mistake in hindsight. Whatever advantages it had weren't worth a decade of ecosystem fragmentation. Isn't learning from mistakes and not repeating them a good thing?

I don't think AVIF is a good example of this though. All major browser makers were members of the consortium that created AVIF.

[brucethemoose2]

On the contrary, the webp push didn't really hurt anything... there were (IIRC) no major exploits related to it, and it sees some use. I wouldn't say it was a mistake.

But it was a tremendous amount of effort and promotion on Google's end for a relatively narrow format.

[TeaDude]

I would seriously disagree. Plenty of CMSes switched all their photos to webp resulting in a huge loss in quality.

[mschuster91]

Google has enough moat via the Chrome, Chrome-derivative browser and Youtube client marketshare to push through a new format virtually everywhere outside the Apple ecosystem.

[doublepg23]

Yet WebP support is still pretty dreadful.

[chungy]

Dreadful where? In this day and age, WebP is supported by every browser, I can browse them comfortably in my file manager and basically every image-related program can open and edit them (I'm running GNOME on Arch). Where is it lacking?

I'm not a fan of WebP, mind, but the idea that support for it is dreadful is strange to me.

[wpm]

I think was less than a year ago that OBS got support for webp. Just about the same for Photoshop. Plenty of software still doesn’t support it or support it well. Glad your experience has been good.

Personally, the fact that it was Googles idea means I’m going to hold it at arms length, if not avoid it entirely. The web should be built on open standards.

[asddubs]

actually, given that they now support JPEG XL and AVIF, edge is the most conservative. They sure did take their sweet time with webp, though.

[omoikane]

I would guess that Apple make business decisions based on metrics that others do not have access to, including those unknown to Google and average internet users.

[wpietri]

Yeah, Google's top three revenue sources are ads, ads, and ads. (Respectively search, network, and YouTube.) Their customers are advertisers. Chrome's job (and Android's) is to make sure they retain control of sufficient surface area to place ads. Chrome user opinion to them is important to their business in about the same way meatpackers care about what cattle think of the design of the feeding stations. As long as they keep coming to eat, it's just mooing.

[stephenr]

> As long as they keep coming to eat, it's just mooing.

I love this phrase thank you.

[ksec]

I dont think anything has changed. JPEG XL being supported by Apple would only be 20% of user world wide. Assuming every one uses it. According to the initial Google thread this is likely not considered as high enough interest.

With Google's study [1], by Google's Engineer, JPEG XL is no where near good enough compared to AVIF.

None of the above facts have changed since Google Chrome's decision on JPEG XL.

/S

[1] https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html

[aarmot]

That study is far from being conclusive. Please read also

https://cloudinary.com/blog/the-case-for-jpeg-xl

[ksec]

>That study is far from being conclusive. Please read also

Yes that is why I had "/S" at the end.

[DannyBee]

Uh? This is just a random request on a bug tracker that someone is triaging the same way they triage all other things?

[brucethemoose2]

Yeah, it's barely a response at all.

But it still more of a response than Google has given in ages.

[nathan_phoenix]

Can't lose the edge to Tim Apple...

[petecooper]

>[E]dge

There's a browser joke here somewhere, I'm sure.

[coldpie]

Adding new image format support to a web browser is not a small change.

[MaxBarraclough]

It's not a 5 minute job, sure, but compared to something like WebGPU it's tiny.

[brucethemoose2]

It was already implemented, and gated behind a flag.

[gorlilla]

And surely doesnt come with any security baggage.

[JyrkiAlakuijala]

it adds 185 kB of compressed binary size -- probably by compressing the graphics that come along Chromium will 10x counter the added weight and it will actually save size